The existing international literature on higher education centers on the transition from elite to mass higher education, the changing relationship between governments and universities, and the differentiation of the institutional fabric of national systems. These important institutionalized concerns lead to an unbalanced research agenda if other basic features are not pursued. Two additional fundamental features need expanded attention: substantive academic growth, with its roots in the research imperative and the dynamics of disciplines; and innovative university organization, a sharply growing concern among practitioners as universities seek greater capacity to change.Proliferating at a rapid rate, modern academic knowledge changes fields of study from within, alters universities from the bottom-up, and increases the benefits and costs of decisions on the inclusion and exclusion of various specialties. The long-term trend from simple to complex knowledge, arguably more important than the trend from elite to mass higher education, forces universities to position themselves between knowledge expansion and student expansion, with emphasis increasingly placed on the knowledge dimension. Innovative universities explore new ways of organizing knowledge and of more effectively exploiting the fields in which they are already engaged. Greater awareness of new means of knowledge organization will help universities make wiser choices in the twenty-first century.During the last three decades, the growing international literature in the study of higher education has largely centered on three large areas of concern: the transition from elite to mass higher education; the changing relationship between governments and universities, with attendant concerns of university governance and authority; and the integration and differentiation of higher education systems. We now know a great deal about these broad issues. The development of mass higher education has been widely tracked. Its role in expanding the size of institutions and systems, swelling budgets, increasing popular involvement, and stimulating governmental interest has been duly noted. The place of government in university affairs has been extensively pursued, virtually on an annual basis, with governments portrayed as moving closer during one period and stepping back in another as they vary their approaches to resource allocation, audit, accountability, and assessment. We now know that governments and universities are not "partners." They are two parties with different interests and priorities that sometimes converge and sometimes sharply conflict. In turn, system differentiation and integra-